Talk:Cecil Rhodes/Archive 1

"Imperialist"

♥ born in 1856...

Is "imperialist" really an occupation? That'd like saying "Bill Gates is an American capitalist." I'm taking this part out because I don't think the Wikipedia, aspiring to be a reliable source of factual information, should be in the business of making up its own labels and attaching them to historical figures. Moreover, this sentence is also redundant, because the fact that he took part in the extension of Britain's empire in Africa is already effectively and factually conveyed by the following sentences. --

The link between Rhodes sexual orientation and Mugabe's anti-gay campaign is NOT dubious as Altaar has pointed out.

--

Perhaps it would be more appropriate added to the Mugabe article? Valisk 16:15, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a small edit war developing, maybe this is the time to ask the question: Why is the last paragraph there at all? The history of Rhodesia after Rhodes' death belongs in the Rhodesia article, doesn't it? DJ Clayworth 16:21, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's a good point. On reflection, I think you're right. (Good example here of what talk pages are for. ;) - Hephaestos|§ 16:27, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Let's not forget that Cecil Rhodes was one of the most evil Europeans in all of African history, cynically using the rather naive missionary visions of men like David Livingstone to justify the brutal exploitation of Africans in his de Beer mines, attacking neighboring nations European and African alike, and laying apartheid's foundations for economic ends. (The preceding sentence being a lot of hogwash, why not forget it? -Ed.) The only bright spot on his record, ironically, was his devotion to his alma mater, Oxford, for which he created the Rhodes scholarship (expressly restricting it to men only; how the modern Rhodes scholarship evaded this stipulation is a mystery to me). South Africa today remains scarred from his blissfully short, yet banefully enduring iron grip on South African politics. Wherever he is now, I hope he's doing less harm than he did in his previous life.

Davus

P.S. He's also apparently the fifty-fifth greatest South African, although according to South African voters he was neither the greatest bigot (Hendrik Verwoerd, the "Architect of Apartheid," placed 19th) nor infamous cheat (Hansie Cronje, infamous for taking bribes in international cricket matches, placed 11th). Go figure.

DAS

Wow, how NPOV of you.

Ches -- I would also say Davus' opinions are neutral. I'm more inclined to label Rhodes a perpetrator of genocide (see point 1. at the end of this section -Ed.). Rhodes was responsible for such noble endeavours as removing diamond claims from non-white hands and transfering them into his own through legislation. He was a real gem. The quote I heard about that list of Greatest South Africans was: "It goes to show who has a phone in South Africa." Perhaps the most ironic part of Rhodes' inclusion on that list is that he didn't migrate to South Africa until he was an adult.

==

I cannot believe people use anacronistic ideas to call Cecil Rhodes "evil;" its people like that who should not be on the Wikipedia. This is not a moral endeavor, it is a purely objective reference tool. Historians tell, they do not judge - that is for modern day policy makers and moralists. This is not a pan-African forum, so please leave out your personal agenda.

"Purely objective"? While any reference can, and probably should, try to be "objective" and have a completely NPOV, this is simply not possible. The fact that historians bother to pay attention to the "bad" things perpetrated by figures of yesteryear is because of judgment drawn. Admittedly, the threshold for making such judgments should be set pretty high (e.g. proof that Cecil Rhodes knowingly exploited black workers or regarded them as sub-human) ... and it would probably be best to avoid using words like "evil" which have questionable relevance even today.

--

I, for one, think this article conveys the information in a very proper manner as is. My only suggestion would be to add more details on Rhodes' life. Clearly, more happened with him than is written here.

--erm,..."evil" is not an anachronism.

-- it is impossible to write history objectively--as human beings, we are incapable of being objective as we are inherently basing our opinions, judgements etc of things on our own personal experiences and worldviews. this can be seen in what aspects of history people choose to study in the first place, and what aspects of those histories get left out in the telling of history. it is impossible to include everything, and that makes it easy for historians to write history in the manner that they choose. ignorance comes from the inability to question history and ask why things are written or discussed the way that they are. anyway, history changes according to who you are talking to. ok, so it was great that rhodes created the scholarship. if you ask the people who were affected by his policies, he was a disgustingly racist person, responsible for a lot of policy in south africa, zambia and zimbabwe that led to the brutal deaths of many people. those people and their families i'm sure would have no problem calling rhodes evil, and would be justified in doing so i think. also, what does this not being a pan-african forum have to do with anything? that comment doesnt even make sense.

This article is a whitewashed load of hogsh*t. It's good to see the de Beers company spending some of its money to make sure that the vicious racism of its founder gets buried as much as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.112.151 (talk) 14:12, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Here are three points for you all:

1. The area later called 'Rhodesia' never had more than 300,000 people or so; the land would support no more. The arrival of the civilization that Rhodes promoted and its agriculture, industry and medicine caused the population of Rhodesia to grow to over 8 million by final independence in 1980. On the most basic level, this was good for the lives of the people. Because they were actualy living, for a change.

2. Speaking of living, the Matabele (related to the Zulus) were in the process of exterminating and enslaving the Shona people in the area. The arrival of Rhodes' Pioneer Column in 1890 put a stop to that after a few years. It is likely that if they had shown up ten years later, the place would not now be called 'Zimbabwe'(after an old Shona ruin), but 'Gwen'debele' ('Matabeleland').

3. Racialism was certainly abroad in the Victorian era, but much of Rhodes' disdain for 'savages' and so forth was based on the Stone Age way of life they followed, as briefly described above. The guideline laid down by 'vicious racist' Rhodes for joining the new way of life was 'equal rights for all civilized men'. This implied eventual rule by the black majority of the land. The imperfect carrying out of this policy forms the history of the land.

To the facts above I will add one opinion: blaming the current state of Zimbabwe on Rhodes is the most arrant nonsense. That state is caused by the same heavy-handed socialist state-planning policies that have ruined every other country which tried them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.149.136.2 (talk) 08:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Do it for mummu

Removed incorrect statement that Rhodes's railway locomotives burnt mummies - that was the Egyptian Railway Authority, three thousand miles north. Also revised "Zimbabwe" section, renaming it as "Rhodesia" and generally tidied up a couple of sections.Humansdorpie 11:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of Mummu, why aren't the JAMS mentioned. It is a well known fact that he kicked out the JAMS and his secret society was filled with them.71.0.150.23 03:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

archaeohistory

Instead of arguing how evil he was, you guys need to fix this article. It completely omits the arguably greatest archaeohistorical destruction of SubSaharan Africa -- the archaelogical destruction of Greater Zimbabwe by Rhodes, Bent, and Hall, trying to prove their idiotic racist fantasies that whites must have secretly built all the walls, monuments and buildings in Africa, because they "knew" that Africans were genetically incapable of planning, thinking, or building... Although comically tragic, it is of historic importance to archaeohistory of East African and Bantu studies.

Vandalism or erroneous deletion?

The Politics paragraph is left hanging in the middle of the first sentence Epeeist smudge 04:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It was vandalism. Restored now. --Ezeu 04:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I am not familiar with how to cite things on Wikipedia. So I will say here on the talk that the sources for the Princess Radziwill section that I contributed are Cecil Rhodes and the Princess by Brian Roberts and Rhodes:The Race for Africa by Antony Thomas. FDR MyTalk May 23 2:12 AM 2006 (UTC)

My source for my statement about Rhodes supporting Parnell and Irish Home Rule is Rhodes: The Race for Africa by Antony Thomas. FDR May 25 8:34 AM 2006 (UTC)

My source for my statement about Rhodes being a Freemason is also Antony Thomas' Rhodes: The Race for Africa. FDR May 25 8:44 AM 2006 (UTC)

I've added citations at the ends of the three paragraphs you mention. I've also looked up the ISBN numbers for the books, in case anybody wants to search for them. dewet|✉ 13:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation

Well, well - the usual motley collection of implied ifs, buts, suggestions, and other ephemeral cant. This entire section is POV, unsourced and largely irrelevant. Deletion will soon follow unless compelling reasons not to may be presented. Eddie.willers 03:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It is unsourced. I do not see how it is POV or irrelevant. Generally speaking, a famous person's non-heterosexual orientation is considered a notable piece of information on Wikipedia. To ignore the very widespread rumor would be POV, as we would be failing to mention an aspect of the man that many people assume is true. Savatar 00:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Response to Savatar. You admit that the section is unsourced - that alone qualifies it for justifiable deletion wrt Wiki standards.

It is POV precisely because it is unsourced - without citing a verifiable reference, any statement is merely opinion.

Finally, the sexuality of historical figures only has relevance if one is a neo-Gramscian, obsessed with promoting the view that homosexuality is natural and noteworthy by virtue of the 'fact' of the queerness of said historical figures - to say the least, this is a non-encylopaedic approach to the discussion of history. Eddie.willers 04:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. First, most articles about heterosexuals reference the fact in one way or another. Second, exposing the closeted sexuality of certain historical figures tells us a lot about them, and moreover tells us something perhaps of the nature of repression of sexual instinct and what it can do to people. Many closeted homosexuals become sadistic and bitter, and I think that is clearly the case with a demon like Rhodes. If this is simply hearsay, however, that is another matter entirely. --Kelt65 (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

We do need a source, primarily because the matter is contested, (there are plently of unreferenced statements in the article that I'm sure you do not consider opinion). A reference referring to the rumor will not be hard to locate, since it is a near certainty that all of Rhodes biographers would have examined the matter and commented on it.

After several google searches, I am unable to find any "Gramscian" that would appear to be relevent to this discussion (the Italian Marxist guy???), however, I believe your statement above makes it quite clear which one of us has a POV agenda in this matter. Savatar 05:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of excellent sources of information about Rhodes's homosexual relationships, including John Finch, "Cecil Rhodes", Hutchinson 1976, and Robert I. Rotberg, "LEAD: THE FOUNDER Cecil Rhodes and the Pursuit of Power", Oxford University Press, 1988 --Kstern999 19:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I made a mistake and accidently pasted something that I had typed for something else into this article, I have corrected this, I am DEEPLY SORRY. FDR 8:39 25 September 2006

Sorry, I am not good at using computers and I accidentally made the sexual orientation text typed differently from how the rest of the article is typed while I was revising it, could someone change this back to normal. FDR MyTalk 1:06, October 4, 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I managed to fix the section on my own. FDR MyTalk 1:12, October 4, 2006 (UTC)

I always supposed he was gay because my European History textbook--which is a standard and very common text (A History of Western Society by Mckay) says that his homosexuality was "undeniable." I doubt they'd put that in a textbook used in many high school classes if it was just conjecture.

There is no doubt that Cecil Rhodes was indeed a homosexual. (HaroldCartwright 20:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

Just because Rhodes was a misogynist who surrounded himself with a coterie of young men doesn't mean that he was gay. He may well have been A-sexual with a deep dislike of women. There is no direct evidence that "Cecil Rhodes was indeed a homosexual" only cirucmstanical evidence and that is the most dangerous of all. Surely the debate over his sexuality dimishes the man and what he achieved and is not helpful in a historical context? Lara1982 (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What's all the fuss about it? Who care's if he's homosexual or heterosexual, or whatever??? It only matter in the context of history. SO....., his sexual orientation, does it matter in the clarification or explanation of his role in the history? Yes or no? Demophon (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Rhodes' personal characteristics are relevant biographical details and as such need to be included. This is a general biography - as opposed to a purely political or literary biography. The evidence is wider than misogyny (as shown in the article); and I really don't see how it can diminish the man? In fact I think it makes him look stronger for it - despite a discriminatory and intolerant society, he was still able to achieve great things. I think it's disappointing that you regard his homosexuality as a 'diminishing' characteristic. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider it a "dimishing" characteristic at all, all I intended to convey was that the debate surrounding his sexuality distracts from the discussion about his achievements / failings etc... To me it seems people get too caught up in the arguments over people's sexuality and forget about what they achieved. I still think it is dangerous to use circumstantial evidence to make any form of judgment, either positive or negative, from our own particular bias.Lara1982 (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see why it should diminish from his achievements at all? Again I reiterate that this is a biographical article and contains information not only on what Rhodes did as a person, but what he was like. I think you could argue the other way and also say that people get too caught up with grand events, and forgot to look at what also drove a person in an interior sense. The evidence is no more circumstantial than much of the rest of the article - and indeed a good deal better referenced. Finally nearly all modern mainstream biographies of Rhodes deal with the issue of his sexuality (including the Oxford University Dictionary of Biography) and so I am content that the issue is relevant, and notable enough to be included here. I am also concerned about questions around bias. If neutrality was an issue then contributors would also seek to amend the section dealing with Princess Radziwill, which covers similar relationship issues. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Demophon has repeatedly tried to vandalise this article without either justifying their amendments or trying to build consensus. It is misleading to say that the text dealing with Rhodes sexuality is either irrelevant or disputable. The issue is dealt with at length in mainstream biograhical and historical sources. It is commonly accepted that Rhodes was homosexual. Such personal relationships and characterstics are as relevant to the article as if they were heterosexual relationships, according to wikipedia guidelines. Please ensure consistency and neutrality (and avoid personal bias) - the section on Radzwill is of clearly less relevance and disputable, and yet has not been amended. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm trying to guess what the reason is why someone spends more than 500 words, with prose-like sentences as Pickering, after whispering "You have been father, mother, brother and sister to me", died in Rhodes’ arms, just to suggests someone's sexuality. And still then there is no clarity about the subject. What is the reason? What does someone have in mind with this large section? Demophon (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In good faith I have edited the section so that it is sharper and focused. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were looking to make the article clearer by removing sentences that were not directly relevant to the discussion at hand; rather than disputing that references to Rhodes' homosexuality should not be included at all because they are not of interest/ irrelevant. The section now reads at 265 words - this is modest I think to cover the man's personal relationships when 320 words are used to cover his love for diamonds, and 427 words are used to cover his political views. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I placed the tags only because I considered these tags relevant enough. I had some doubts, and others with me (see the discussion above), about the relevance of the section "sexuality" itself. Nothing more, nothing less! I didn't change anything to the text itself (However you were quite in a hurry to repeatedly removing the tags, thereby breaching the Three-revert rule yourself, and subsequently you accused me of vandalism). Remember, you’re not the owner of this article!

After reviewing the article, I concluded that it wasn’t important enough to spend a separate and (then) large section just to prove the sexuality of Cecil Rhode. By putting this block of text in the middle/hart of the article, it was thereby overly shifting the attention from more important to less important topics, and disrupted the balance of the whole article. Of course, his personal relationships do have importance to mention, because they had an impact on his personal life. Also, it is okay to mention shortly his sexual orientation somewhere in the text itself. But again, why placing a large and whole separate "sexuality" section, with all sort of specially selected suggestive phrases and circumstantial evidence, with the context or setting of the text as such, just primarily to suggest the homosexuality of Cecil Rhode?

What did you have in mind with that? What did you want to prove with that?

But okay, thank you that you have changed the text and the section name after all. It is better now, however I think it still can be improved a lot. Demophon (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the earlier text, I think most of your comments were valid. It was quite a long section, with some extraporaneous detail. I would still argue that the issue is of a certain importance - similar biographies on wikipedia have quite extensive sections on husbands and wives. Rhodes wasn't married but his personal relationships reveal an insight into the person. If this was purely a political biography/ commentary then I would agree that the personal stuff could be left out. Mainstream biographies on Rhodes do cover the issue in some detail, and the entry in the Oxford University National Dictionary of Biography has a couple of paras and states that 'Rhodes relationship with Pickering was probably homosexual'. What I want to achieve is a clearer idea of who Rhodes was for readers - many know that he set up the Rhodes scholarship, and was involved in African politics, but few know that he was gay. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good heavens! Are you two still at it? Why?

There are so many words that it's a bit hard to work out what you are each on about.

Demphon seems to be saying: "Why such a concentration on Rhodes' sexuality? Why is it so important?"

Contaldo80 seems to be saying: "Rhodes' sexuality gives us some insight to the nature of the man."

Is there more to this "discussion" than that? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hit the nail on the head! Discussions on sexuality often seem to attract a great deal of controversy. I'm not really sure it needs to always be the case, but I guess if people are looking for an evidence-based discussion then I'm willing to engage to provide this. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe I' wrong... For me it is of minor importance to specially wanting to label him as homosexual, heterosexual, asexual or whatever. But probably for you guys it is important to dedicate an entire section to prove primarly that Cecil Rhodes is homosexual. Demophon (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so it sounds like I summarised Contaldo to his/her satisfaction, but it would seem from Demophon's response that he/she doesn't entirely agree with my summary of his/her arguement.

Demophon: How would you summarise your arguement in one or two short sentences?

And by-the-way, whether you are "right" or "wrong" is not my primary interest; my primary interest is to understand "what you are on about".

And if I am one of the "you guys" to whom you addressed "But probably for you guys it is important to dedicate an entire section to prove primarly that Cecil Rhodes is homosexual", you have inaccurately jumped to a conclusion not based on anything I've said; I've simply asked, "What are you on about?". Pdfpdf (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to assure that I'm not seeking to prove anything through my contribution to this article. I want to reiterate again that mainstream and reputable biographies and reference guides on Rhodes include this as a notable issue, and so I am simply doing the same here. I don't doubt it will be of little of no interest to many readers, and equally it will be of significant interest to others. It's a matter of personal judgement; key thing is that it meets wikipedia criteria/ rules. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I sense a stalemate here. To help resolve this conflict, I've pulled something from a mainstream peer-reviewed academic journal addressing this matter. Rhodes' sexuality is indeed a matter of importance. In a nutshell, here is good reason to think Rhodes may have been homosexual but the amount of direct evidence in unfortunately very limited and so we cannot conclude this with certainty.Rimbauldo (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am grateful for your attempt to provide clarity in the text. I am reluctant though to accept the wording we have in the academic journal you refer to (could you confirm which it is please?) as it talks to much about why it's not possible to come up with a definite view on whether Rhodes was or was not homosexual - and leaves out any text saying why scholars have presented such a theory. If we can add in more of the relationship with Pickering (which is key here under the heading of 'personal relationships') then I would be much happier. I'm not sure, though, why we must look for a cast-iron case for saying Rhodes was homosexual - we don't generally do this when assuming someone is heterosexual. We are otherwise in danger of creating a controversy where none need exist. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am grateful toRimbauldo for looking to improve the article; but I think we are in danger of trying to 'resolve' a dispute where none actually exists.Demophon's concerns are around having the issue of sexuality mentioned at all in the article. However I think we have consensus that the sexuality is deemed of relevance by the majority of biographers and historians writing about Rhodes, and as such should be dealt with in this article. Having said that I am content to see the paragraph that has been added as an attempt to ensure neutrality - but I would argue that we still need to include a couple of sentences about Rhodes's relationship with Pickering; at the very least as a mark of respect for the man. (Incidentally the Thomas research is also more recent than the Brown). Contaldo80 (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Neville Pickering

As you know, I've kept well away from this "discussion", but given that Rimbauldo's contribution to the "sexuality" section mentions Rhodes' (not Rhodes's) relationship with Pickering, I really don't see what value you are adding by including such a long and tediously detailed account of Pickering and the relationship under the heading of "sexuality".

Hence, I have decided to be WP:BOLD and have made it into a separate section!

I shall now sit back and watch the response!! Pdfpdf (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. "but I would argue that we still need to include a couple of sentences about Rhodes's relationship with Pickering" - You added at least 5 sentences; my POV is that "a couple" would have been more useful. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If I may add my input, I have merged the section on Pickering with the above paragraph since they are related. The paragraph by Rimbaldo is totally on homosexuality and ends on Pickering. I also changed "a recent biographer" to the name of the biographer because "recent" will eventually change and having the name is much better and specific. I agree with Pdf2 regarding the need to trim the section on Pickering to two informative sentences to avoid undue weight. But otherwise we look like we're nearing a consensus. Hurray! I'm going to give it a stab and see what you guys think. Moonbada (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I managed to keep in the two citations and kept the most tangable and convincing evidence which is leaving his entire will to Pickering on his 25th bday.Moonbada (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

OK I can live with this. But I can't help wondering that if Pickering really was the love of Rhodes life then it's a shame that not only could he not speak much about it when alive; but it seems we musn't also say very much about it after death either. Oh well, at least we've got a marker. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

ideas section

sounds like the usual conspiracy theorist ramblings to me. if it's true, fine, but please give citations for what is alleged. if it's indeed someones fantasy going crazy, delete it. and i believe the "himmler also created the ss after the model of the jesuits"-sentence should be kicked, even IF true. it has nothing to do with rhodes....-- ExpImp^talkcon 21:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph should be deleted until someone can provide some citations. I'm going to take out the reference to Germans (no link!: the royal family!), to the SS/Jesuits sentence as you say. Next editor: please be bolder!--Rob2000 12:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I found the following websites somewhat supporting the claims: utexas.edu uoregon.edu thenewamerican.com pbs.org. But i am unsure on how to reword the paragraph....-- ExpImp^talkcon 18:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

found this: Encyclopedia of World Biography-- ExpImp^talkcon 18:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I wrote part of that section, let me clarify what I was trying to do. I was trying to talk about the fact that Rhodes envisioned a secret society based on the Jesuits eventually bringing the entire world under British rule. I know that nothing ever came out of this. It was merely a childish immature scheme on Rhodes's part. And I know extreme right-wing people have tried to take Rhodes's statements out of context to support their conspiracy theories. I am not an Anglophobe or a right-wing extremist. The SS quote was inapropriate, I give you that and I apologize. And Rhodes's meeting with the Kaiser was irrelevant. But most what I wrote in the ideas section was valid. FDR MyTalk 23:15:57 October 9, 2006 I have revised the ideas section and improved it, I think that it is now acceptable and no longer needs to be tagged. FDR MyTalk 2:12:57 October 10, 2006

Thanks FDR for explaining and expanding on it. I think the para's not quite neutral yet though. It still needs to be adjusted to distinguish more clearly between fact and opinion/gossip eg "That is false... this is ridiculous". Eg compare some of the factual paras in this article and to the homosexuality (gossip/opinion) para - similar distinctions in tone could be made here. I think a major improvement would be changing the title: "ideas" is now misleading about this section, as it clearly does not represent all his ideas. Perhaps it should be something more like "Anglophone anti-Rhodes Societies"? After all, what is this para about? Perhaps deciding on a title would help to focus the content and give a direction to clear it up some more....--Rob2000 09:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC) I have changed the section to make it about the secret society that Rhodes envisioned that never came into existence and have removed the portions about his political and religious views and changed the title to Secret Society and Conspiracy Theories. I think the section has now been cleaned up enough. I make clear in the section that the conspiracy theories about Rhodes are false. FDR MyTalk 17:18:55 October 10,2006 I decided to delete the sexual orientation section completely because it really does not matter and I deleted the secret society section and placed what was said there in the section about Rhodes's will, which is an appropriate context for it. I also removed a trivial thing I had pointed out about Rhodes being mentioned once in passing in a science fiction novel by CS Lewis. FDR MyTalk 3:59:02 October 11, 2006 Somebody vandalized my account and contributed an inapropriate sentence that said "when he died in 1902 Rhodes was considered of the sexiest men in the world". I was not the person who did this. I apologize for this and have deleted this and will find out who vandalized my account. FDR MyTalk 4:51:41 October 20, 2006 (UTC)

Portrait

I believe the close up photo portrait is backwards. The same photo appears the other way in "Men of Wealth" by John Flynn.

209.162.11.193 03:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)J Beyer

Was Rhodes a smoker. --75.52.96.26 09:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What secret society did he found?

The article says that he founded a secret society, but doesn't even give the name. 67.101.159.150 (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats because its a secret! shush... ;) Valisk (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Rhodes the imperialist

I deleted the weasel words "Though Rhodes is considered by some historians to have been an imperialist in his opinions . . " because the preceding para is statement, catalogue and proof of his imperialist beliefs (besides which, the sentence really is not a counterpoint to Rhodes' support of Parnell -- the position of support for Home Rule in Ireland can be aligned with settler rule in the Cape). Rhodes thought of himself as an imperialist in a time when the majority of the Victorian public in Britain thought of imperialism as a Good Thing. It would be quite adequate for an encyclopedia to define imperialism with the entry: "see Cecil Rhodes". I think it is also bizarre that someone has previously deleted here reference to Rhodes as a racist, when the whole tenor and context of Rhodes's political views and imperial views at the time was based on racism (the divine right of the British to rule lesser races), and there are at least two references in the article demonstrating Rhodes's racism even to those not able to percieve the imperialism and racism running through Rhodes' life and times. Rexparry sydney 12:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Rohdes" in photo caption

If I knew how I'd fix it myself - but there you go: "Cecil Rohdes" 21:54, 16 November 2007 68.146.200.255

Fixed. (Thank you "eagle eyes") Pdfpdf (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Childhood in England

What is this supposed to mean?

" He had no siblings, including Francis William Rhodes, an army sergent." 67.130.11.100 (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It means that some irritating vandal has replaced the facts with rubbish, but (except for this fact), the rubbish is not obvious. I have reverted the rubbish. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Forced Labour

Judging by the online literature pertaining to Rhodes, it looks like the issue of forced labour may have been given undue prominence by being inserted at the head of the article. I can't find anything on it in the long and apparently fairly comprehensive article by Shula Marks and Stanley Trapido on Cecil Rhodes in the 2006 edition of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. For an accusation of this type to be included I think it would have to be specific and documented, otherwise it could just be being exaggerated as a smear. All I could find online on forced labour in Rhodesia was the following, which doesn't actually concern Rhodes directly, but the native commissioners:

Mrs. Tawse-Jolie, The Story of Rhodesia (Johannesburg: British South Africa Company, 1936), p. 18: 'Moreover, Rhodesia now [1896] passed under a cloud in public estimation which was intensified by a campaign of abuse directed towards the native policy by the Aborigines Protection Society, and by Labouchere in his paper, Truth. A Commissioner, Sir Richard Martin, was sent out to investigate, and in his report could find nothing more serious than errors of judgment in dealing with the cattle question and the fact that native commissioners were in the habit of calling upon native chiefs to find labour for such work as roads or mining, which was paid for at the current rate of wages. This system was in accordance with native custom, but after this date (1896) it was no longer restored [sic] to in Southern Rhodesia. Forced labour of a much more onerous kind has been levied in other parts of Africa up to a recent period.'

John Hobson, Imperialism, Pt. 2, Ch. 4, Appendix: The Labour Policy of Transvaal Mine-Owners, Part II, Chapter V, note 84: 'Sir Richard Martin in his report states his conviction “that the Native Commissioners, in the first instance, endeavoured to obtain labour through the Indunas, but failing that they procured it by force.” Howard Hensman, defending the administration of the Company in his History of Rhodesia (Blackwood & Sons), admits the practice, thus describing it: “In Rhodesia a native who declined to work” (i.e. for wages) “was taken before the Native Commissioners and sent off to some mine or public work close at hand, paid at what, to him, were very high rates, fed and housed, and then at the end of three months he was allowed to return to his kraal, where he was permitted to remain for the rest of the year.” (p.257)' 87.113.85.152 (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Princess Radziwill

Please ensure consistency and neutrality (and avoid personal bias) - the section on Radzwill is of clearly less relevance and disputable, and yet has not been amended. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The above constitutes neither a discussion, nor consensus. It is simply your statement of your opinion.

The section is by no means "of clearly less relevance", and even if it were, whether it is of more or less relevance is irrelevant.

The question to answer is: "Is it relevant to the article?". I don't see how you can come up with any answer other than "Yes", so I'll be interested to read your response. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. What's with the "July 2008" date on the tag? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was drawing a comparison to the section on personal relationships where likewise there was no consensus on relevance/ exclusion, yet maintenance tags where added to the section in a rather unhelpful manner (without proper discussion - hence the July 2008 tag which you've rightly spotted is eroneous). Personally I'm relaxed about leaving the Radziwill section in - I have suggested amending slightly so that it sits better in relation to the rest of the article (putting under the personal relationships section). See what you think and whether it looks better or not here? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Charles Metcalfe

The sentence "Among his [Rhodes's] Oxford associates ... [was] Charles Metcalfe" links to the page on Charles Metcalfe, 1st Baron Metcalfe. This must be an error because the 1st Baron Metcalfe died in 1846, before Rhodes was born. Perhaps Rhodes knew another (related?) Charles Metcalfe? Joseph W R Howse (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Add to LGBT Project?

I had thought to add this article under the LGBT wikiproject. By adding the article under the LGBT project I thought of flagging up to readers that there are aspects of the article that are of interest to those interested in LGBT issues - so that it's easy to spot from a first glance. But I don't want to unbalance the article or give undue prominence so have removed. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Rhodes House Photo

I've just replaced the old black and white photo with a color version. I don't know if anyone has a preference between the two. The color is in color of course but the b & w has a more historic look to it.--Moonbada (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

Not knowing much of Rhodes, my only knowledge of him was the "Cairo to Capetown" trans-african railroad dream, and yet that wider legacy is barely mentioned in this article. That seems odd to me. --68.185.166.126 (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(I wasn't able to find any mention of that topic in the article at all. Is it mentioned? Where?)

There are possibly other legacies which are also not mentioned. If you have some supporting references, feel free to add the information (suitably referenced), or mention the references here so someone else can follow them up. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Cape-Cairo_railway --66.191.125.140 (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There's even an article for The Rhodes Colossus itself. It's very important, and yet the article only makes a passing reference to the railway, despite including the iconic image. --Hilscher (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, so we have some data. What's the best way to address the problem? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the lack of response, I created a new section which is accessible via Cape to Cairo Red Line.

See also Cape to Cairo. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Connection to Rhode Island

Maybe dumb question but does he have a relation to Rhode Island? Bolinda (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Bolinda

No. Rhode Island was named that before Rhodes was born. Follow the link for possible explanations for the name. -Rrius (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

speculation vs examination

In the Cecil Rhodes#Sexuality section, User talk:DaineG and User talk:Contaldo80 can't seem to agree on the wording of a particular sentence.

On 1 Oct 2008, the sentence read:

• However, several writers have suggested that there are convincing reasons to believe Rhodes may have been homosexual, although admittedly the amount of direct evidence is scarce.

2 October:

• However, several writers have speculated about the possibility that Rhodes may have been homosexual, although admittedly the amount of direct evidence is scarce. (DaineG): (→Sexuality: the quote is far from "convincing reasons". This is closer to it.)

23 October:

• However, several writers have suggested that there are convincing reasons to believe (Contaldo80): (Undid revision by DaineG - This really is 'weasel words' I'm afraid.)
• However, several writers{{who}} have (Pdfpdf): (→Sexuality: I'm not keen on vague handwaving)
• However, several writers{{Who}} have speculated about the possibility that (DaineG): (Undid revision by Contaldo80)(if the amount of direct evidence is scarce then it is speculation. not weasle but stating it as it is.)

27 October:

• However, some writers and academics<ref> ... </ref> have examined the possibility that (Contaldo80) - no comment
• have speculated about the possibility (DaineG): (the following quotes make this clear)

28 October:

• have examined the possibility (Contaldo80): (Er, what was wrong with 'examined'. It's pretty unarguable that what people have done is examined evidence (where possible) or examined the issue more generally. I think we should stop playing games.)
• have speculated about the possibility (DaineG): (→Sexuality: If there's a great lack of evidence there's not much you can examine! It's more accurate to call it speculation than examination. I agree you should stop playing games.)

OK. I can see that you can speculate about a possibility.
Question of Contaldo80: How do you examine a possibility?

I would have thought: "some writers and academics<ref> ... </ref> have examined the available evidence and speculated about the possibility that".

What do you think? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see the words "and academics" was introduced. It's purely redundant, especially as the writers in question presumably *are* academics. It's almost as if a certain viewpoint regarding the speculations is being unduly pushed to make it seem more legitimate, firm and certain than is the case. We should just let it speak for itself.--DaineG (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree.
You wouldn't call J K Rowling an academic, but she's certainly a writer.
And there are any number of academics who can hardly string three words together intelligibly.
However, I am more interested in comments about the "have examined the available evidence and speculated about the possibility". I am well informed (by your comments) of your opinion; to gain consensus, I'd be interested to hear Contaldo80's opinion. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Pdfpdf - I appreciate the way that you have tried to be even-handed over this. A model for others. I think your point over writers and academics reflects well what I was trying to get at - I have particular concerns with some wiki articles that some sources are taken from references that are not academically rigorous. Nor do I accept that you need lots of evidence in order to examine it - in any case, there's enough here to be going on with (not least the issues around Pickering). I'm content to go with the compromise that you suggest. I never quite know what some contributors expect to see in any case as 'conclusive evidence' of homosexuality? A statement from the individual to that effect (would that in any case prove anything?) A criminal conviction maybe? Some sterotypically 'homosexual' behaviour even? That Rhodes enjoyed intimate and extremely involved relationships with a number of men during his life is clearly transparent - and as you know most commentators today are relaxed about acknowledging this; although I accept that we cannot know if he was ever sexually active (in my opinion probably not). Whether or not this sits easily with those who have benefited from Rhodes scholarships over the past century is sadly not within my remit to discover. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. You are right not all writers are academics and not all academics make good writers. What I was trying to say was in this case, both writers are in fact academics which make it entirely redundant as there is complete overlap of the two categories. I'm going to remove the redundancy. However I am fine with Pdfpdf's compromise as it is more balanced.

Contaldo80, I was not asking for 'conclusive evidence'. I'm not asking you to 'prove' to me that Rhodes was gay. I don't care one jot about that. What I do care is if there is a misrepresentation of knowledge, careless or otherwise. We should present the available information as is and avoid introducing our personal view of the issue. You are also implying by your last comment that my motives are driven by homophobia which anyone who knows me could tell you is far from the case. I'd be just as cautious with the wording of an article where someone's homosexuality is being suppressed or whitewashed. Again we need to just stick with the available knowledge and resist the easy temptation of introducing our personal views.--DaineG (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

My intention wasn't meant to be disrespectful. Apologies if I gave offence, and I accept your concern to make sure the article is well drafted. This is to be commended. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Last words

According to a letter in the Daily Telegraph on 3 July 2007[1], Rhodes' last words were "Tantum faciendum parum dactum" (So much to do, so little done.) Can this be verified from a more reliable source? --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

My high school Latin memories are fading, but the verb "to do" is "factum", not "dactum".

Google only gave me one result, (which sounds very similar!) Viz:

He died in 1902 and the last words he uttered were - "So much to do and so little done" (Tantum faciendum parum factum) which later became the motto of my school. http://www.zjc.org.il/showpage.php?pageid=115. The school referred to was on Moffat Street, Salisbury, Rhodesia

(I wonder which school "Robert Innes-Smith, Derby" is referring to?)

So, so far, I have only found a slightly more reliable source. (But the latin is more accurate ... )

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If, however, you Google "Rhodes last words", you get many results showing his last words in English. e.g.

• http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/famous-last-words/64-famous%20last%20words.htm
• http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9902E7DD113DEE32A25752C3A9639C946397D6CF
• http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:8NqP7uVxEJMJ:www.anecdotage.com/index.php%3Faid%3D13095+Rhodes+last+words&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=au
• http://www.famousquotessite.com/famous-quotes-3612-cecil-john-rhodes-founder-of-the-rhodes-scholarships-last-words-1902.html
• http://www.geocities.com/athens/acropolis/6537/real-q.htm
• etc.

However, I don't know if they are "more reliable". Even the NY Times article only implies that they may have been his last words.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"a white supremacist"

We seem to have yet another variation of some previous conversations, viz:

• #"Imperialist"
• #archaeohistory
• #Rhodes the imperialist
• #Forced Labour

I am tempted to revert "a white supremacist", not because I disagree, but because it is but one of many (uncomplimentary) terms by which one could categorise Rhodes, so why pick that particular one and not put in any of the others?

The original sentence says:

Cecil ... was an English-born businessman, mining magnate and politician in South Africa.

Verifiable candidates for addition might include:

• white supremacist
• imperialist
• colonialist
• racist

(Please add to this if you have a source to support it, and supply the source.)

Less verifiable candidates might include:

• misogynist
• homosexual
• narcisist
• etc.

However, none of these are occupations or professions.

Now, 75.101.1.80 makes the comment: this is a central part of his story. his views on race and the superiority of the white race are well known and documented and central to his role in africa politics. I must agree. However, as I've already said, that was neither his "occupation", nor his "profession".

My opinion is that this phrase should not appear in the first sentence. However, I feel it should appear in the first section. I wondered whether the sentence: He was an ardent believer in colonialism (some would say imperialism) covered it, but concluded that I don't think it does.

So, does anyone else have an opinion? If not, I will (somewhat reluctantly) remove it from the first sentence. Awaiting some useful discussion, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should go from the first sentence. Re: first section, I think imperialist is the least negative if the adjectives above - a quick google turns up Cecil Rhodes: Imperialist and Entrepreneur or Cecil Rhodes Statesman Financier Imperialist or Rhodes | Cecil | 1853-1902 | british imperialist and business magnate or The arch-imperialist colonizer of the nineteenth century Wizzy…☎ 13:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Details of "ill health" and death, please

"he was dogged by ill health throughout his relatively short life. Rhodes died in 1902"
His "ill health" being what, exactly?
Cause of death; what, exactly?
Details, please (with cites). -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality - weasel words

I think we need some clarification here about how we handle the issue of quotations from academic sources before we proceed. The section includes a direct quote from the academic Richard Brown who says:

"On the issue of Rhodes' sexuality... there is, once again, simply not enough reliable evidence to reach firm, irrefutable conclusions. It is inferred, but not proved, that Rhodes was homosexual and it is assumed (but not proved) that his relationships with men were sometimes physical."

It has been suggested that we name those that 'infer' and those that 'assume'. But aren't we simply summarising Brown's own conclusions and isn't it for the reader to go to read Brown if they want to know more about the whos and the whys? Otherwise it's not really workable is it? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(I think you are being very polite. I'm getting grumpy about people who insist on "correcting" quotes.)

Yes, Brown did use "weasel words". Yes, Brown could have been less vague. But he wasn't.

It's a quote! (That's why it has those " thingies around it.)

In the case of unusual grammar in a quote, one can put (sic), but I don't think there is a similar such mechanism for acknowledging that an author has been vague.

"It has been suggested that we name those that 'infer' and those that 'assume'." - Indeed it has. However, it wasn't "us" who used the words 'infer' and 'assume', it was Mr Brown. (And even if Mr Brown were still alive, I doubt he would rewrite his book as a convenience to wikipedia.)

No, we're not summarising Brown, we're quoting him.

Yes, it is for the reader to go to read Brown if they want to know more.

Yes indeed - otherwise it is NOT workable, and never has been.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The sentence starting "It is inferred..." was not quoted, nor cited so until you changed it with your last edit, there was no attrition making it clear who (other than a WP editor) was saying this. So it was a classic weasel statement - all it needs now is a citation to fix it. Socrates2008 (Talk) 20:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

With respect Socrates2008, your statements are not supported by the facts.

The version before your first edit is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cecil_Rhodes&oldid=321349321. Reproducing that text:

Brown also comments: "On the issue of Rhodes' sexuality... there is, once again, simply not enough reliable evidence to reach firm, irrefutable conclusions. It is inferred, fairly convincingly (but not proved), that Rhodes was homosexual and it is assumed (but not proved) that his relationships with men were sometimes physical. Neville Pickering is described as Rhodes' lover in spite of the absence of decisive evidence."[18]

As you can see, the statement is/was both quoted and a citation is/was supplied. Pdfpdf (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And with respect, if you take a closer look, you'll see that the version before the edit in which I added the weasel tags has no quotes around it, and is therefore not attributable to anyone other than a WP editor. But you already know this, because you subsequently added quotes to change this sentence into a quote of Mr Brown. WP has core policies around original research and veriability that were not met until you quoted the sentence and I also added a citation for it. If you are finding this confusing, then I suggest that you should read here rather than engaging in further irrelevant discussion here. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've gone back myself and looked at this, and Pdfpdf is absolutely right. In fact the quote has had quotation marks from the very beginning - it has been clear. You were not the one to add quotation marks. I think you have made a mistake on this issue, and with due respect I don't think you're really in a position to suggest others look at the WP guidelines. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In this version, the sentence is NOT QUOTED. Take a look-it says (and I'm cutting and pasting the exact text below):

• It is inferred, but not proved, that Rhodes was homosexual and it is assumed (but not proved) that his relationships with men were sometimes physical.

Please show me the quotation marks ("") in the above sentence. If you insist that you are seeing quotes in this revision, then it's possibly a code page issue, i.e. non-std quotes used that don't show up for all locales. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well firstly, let us look at what was there before your FIRST edit. Yes, you too please.

Just in case you can't identify the version before your FIRST, I'll once again supply the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cecil_Rhodes&oldid=321349321 Look at it please.

Well golly gosh! The statement is/was both quoted and a citation is/was supplied!!

Gee Socrates2008. As both Contaldo80 and I told you, you are wrong! Isn't that amazing?

Then we come to your second edit. Well goodness gracious me! You're wrong there, too.

Gee Socrates2008. You don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about.

Face it sunshine - You're wrong.

The actual facts, as distinct from your biased selective opinion, just DON'T support you.

Please show me the quotation marks ("") in the above sentence. - Well, there aren't any in what you copied, because your powers of observation and analytic abilities don't seem to allow you to see reality. Look again. Where you put the asterisk, what's actually there? Well goodness gracious me! It's a quote mark!! Are you the only person incapable of seeing it?

So go have another look, and do your homework properly this time.

You will, IN FACT, see that quotation marks ARE there. I showed them to you first time, and you paid no attention.

This time, I suggest YOU make a thorough examination. If you do so, you will see what everybody but you did.

If you STILL can't see them, then I will happily and sarcasticly point them out to you. I must admit that I'm enjoying watching you make a fool of yourself. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Could it be Socrates2008 that you've missed the fact that the quotation starts with a first sentence by Brown "On the issue of Rhodes' sexuality...." Then it moves onto the second sentence about inferences before the quotation comes to a close? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Socrates2008: If the quotes are indeed not visible to you, then I apologise for my sarcasm and rudeness. (However, I must admit that I am sceptical ... ) Belatedly assuming good faith, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's save the sarcasm. Yes, thank you Contaldo, you are right - the specific version that attracted my attention was unquoted, apparently because a long quote spanning a number of sentences was chopped up into paragraphs after the version that Pdfpdf is focused on. Everyone is right, so let's move on as it's fine now. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's save the continuing inaccurate statements. "Everyone is right" - I'm afraid not. (Yet another inaccurate statement.) As has been pointed out to you several times, Contaldo and I are right; you are/were wrong.

Yes, it is fine now, because Contaldo has restored the situation to the equivalent of what it was before you came along and made your inappropriate edits, your inaccurate statements and assertions, and your inappropriate comments.

I find it fascinating that you are unable to admit that you made a mistake, and are unable to apologise. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

First WP:AGF warning served. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well goodness gracious me. "I must admit that I'm enjoying watching you make a fool of yourself." Pdfpdf (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks on talk pages. It looks to me that the matter is now solved. EdJohnston (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. That would depend upon what you define as "the matter". (Personally, I would say there are a number of "matters", and although the symptoms of one of the matters has been solved by reverting back to the situation in place before a certain editor's arrival upon the scene, I see no sign that either the cause of that matter, or any of the other "matters", have been successfully addressed, much less solved or resolved.) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You may move this entire conversation to your own talk page if you prefer. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As your response is neither relevant to the Cecil Rhodes article, nor to my last comment, and as there is an open conversation on your talk page, I have taken your suggestion and moved the conversation there. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)